First, Trump been firing lots of government workers. Almost 400k since he took over. That's good, not bad.

Second....

Quote:

---

"The break-even rate peaked at about 250,000 jobs per month in 2023, fell to around 10,000 by July 2025, and declined to near zero after that.

...

... implies break-even employment growth of about 30,000 jobs per month by the end of 2025, down from 160,000 in 2023."

---

This graph does not include March. The economy added 178,000 jobs in March.

The folks posting the jobs created data and throwing rocks at Trump for "low" numbers are off the mark.





https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/0331

Sid Farkas said:

---

I think this indicates 'churn'?

also...

---

The opposite....

Quote:

---

As net outflows of unauthorized immigrants reduced employment growth in late 2025, payroll gains that might historically have signaled economic slack are now consistent with a balanced labor market.

---

Translated: there is a new normal for employment numbers, which will be lower, now that we've started purging a lot of illegals from the system and it seems to be balanced at this point. So, whenever you see employment numbers hit the news wire and everyone starts screaming about how the numbers are so much lower than in the past and "this POTUS's economy is killing us", you have to look past that.

The reality is that fewer illegals in the system coupled with headwinds on birth rates means our new jobs count normal is going to be lower. It can't be anything but because...math.

Government employment declining is fine, but those people still need jobs so private sector needs to take them in. That isn't happening as enough jobs are not created and US corps are itching to send jobs abroad. How can people live in this country? Who will pay their property taxes?

That's not what the data shows.

In the last 5 months, we've had +178k, -133k, +160k, -17k, +41k net jobs each month. Net change = Jobs added (hires + business births) - Jobs lost (layoffs + business deaths + contractions). The gov jobs are included in those layoffs. We don't have Oct or Sep numbers so I stopped at Nov.

The sum is +229k jobs total, or 45k jobs per month on average. Based on the new breakeven, that is 15k/month more jobs than breakeven (fixed labor).

Prints that would've signaled recession three years ago don't signal it today, and the labor market is visibly softening - both can be true. I agree with the churn comment - we're in a low-hire, low-fire equilibrium excluding government workers.

I think the white collar jobs recession is going to continue and that's at the exact wrong time for the sake of all of the government workers getting laid off. Government workers get a reputation of being less efficient and innovative than their private sector counterparts and while that is not ALWAYS the case, it is directionally correct and that doesn't bode well for the laid off and the markets tolerance of absorbing them into the workforce.

Many will land jobs in adjacent roles and roles that favor their access...but your average GS-12 is going to have a long hunt.

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Government employment declining is fine, but those people still need jobs so private sector needs to take them in. That isn't happening as enough jobs are not created and US corps are itching to send jobs abroad. How can people live in this country? Who will pay their property taxes?

---

They could just pack up and move to the closest socialist country they can find, since most dream of that lifestyle anyway. Maybe they'll hire them.

---

Is that really your solution? That people who are unhappy with something in their own country should leave?

Logos Stick said:

---

That's not what the data shows.

In the last 5 months, we've had +178k, -133k, +160k, -17k, +41k net jobs each month. Net change = Jobs added (hires + business births) - Jobs lost (layoffs + business deaths + contractions). The gov jobs are included in those layoffs. We don't have Oct or Sep numbers so I stopped at Nov.

The sum is +229k jobs total, or 45k jobs per month on average. Based on the new breakeven, that is 15k/month more jobs than breakeven (fixed labor).

---

We look at jobs, not what the jobs earn. We need to do the latter.

100 janitor jobs are worth less than 1 tech CEO job. How are we accounting for that? Is it in the numbers?

infinity ag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

That's not what the data shows.

In the last 5 months, we've had +178k, -133k, +160k, -17k, +41k net jobs each month. Net change = Jobs added (hires + business births) - Jobs lost (layoffs + business deaths + contractions). The gov jobs are included in those layoffs. We don't have Oct or Sep numbers so I stopped at Nov.

The sum is +229k jobs total, or 45k jobs per month on average. Based on the new breakeven, that is 15k/month more jobs than breakeven (fixed labor).

---

We look at jobs, not what the jobs earn. We need to do the latter.

100 janitor jobs are worth less than 1 tech CEO job. How are we accounting for that? Is it in the numbers?

---

I guess the Federal government should just hire them back then.

How would you "account for that"? I don't think salary is one of the numbers reported on UE info.

Government workers losing their jobs and the private sector adding jobs is the perfect job's prescription for what ails America. Less drain on the treasury on one hand and more income on the other hand.

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Government employment declining is fine, but those people still need jobs so private sector needs to take them in. That isn't happening as enough jobs are not created and US corps are itching to send jobs abroad. How can people live in this country? Who will pay their property taxes?

---

They could just pack up and move to the closest socialist country they can find, since most dream of that lifestyle anyway. Maybe they'll hire them.

---

Is that really your solution? That people who are unhappy with something in their own country should leave?

---

"People unhappy with something "? Lol, quite the understatement.

100% for those who want us to lose our culture, move to one-party rule, free the criminals, eliminate women in sports, have no borders, confiscate what I've worked my ass off for, and fundamentally change everything about our country that gives us freedom and the opportunity to achieve based on our effort - you damn right I want them out.

---

Are we talking about the same thing?

If I am right, you want to get "socialists" out of the country. Well that won't happen because they are Americans too. If there are foreigners, then by all means kick them out.

I am more worried about our corps bringing in foreigners, converting them into Americans In Passport Only (AIPO), whose minds and hearts in a foreign land and want to take our jobs by undercutting the market rate, and sending the money they make to their country of origin.

They are sucking the country dry, LEGALLY.

That worries me more than "socialists". You should be worried about it too if you care about your kids and grandkids.

PS: I think you and I are mostly on the same page and definitely on the same team, we may quibble about intricacies.

infinity ag said:

---

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Government employment declining is fine, but those people still need jobs so private sector needs to take them in. That isn't happening as enough jobs are not created and US corps are itching to send jobs abroad. How can people live in this country? Who will pay their property taxes?

---

They could just pack up and move to the closest socialist country they can find, since most dream of that lifestyle anyway. Maybe they'll hire them.

---

Is that really your solution? That people who are unhappy with something in their own country should leave?

---

"People unhappy with something "? Lol, quite the understatement.

100% for those who want us to lose our culture, move to one-party rule, free the criminals, eliminate women in sports, have no borders, confiscate what I've worked my ass off for, and fundamentally change everything about our country that gives us freedom and the opportunity to achieve based on our effort - you damn right I want them out.

---

Are we talking about the same thing?

If I am right, you want to get "socialists" out of the country. Well that won't happen because they are Americans too. If there are foreigners, then by all means kick them out.

I am more worried about our corps bringing in foreigners, converting them into Americans In Passport Only (AIPO), whose minds and hearts in a foreign land and want to take our jobs by undercutting the market rate, and sending the money they make to their country of origin.

They are sucking the country dry, LEGALLY.

That worries me more than "socialists". You should be worried about it too if you care about your kids and grandkids.

PS: I think you and I are mostly on the same page and definitely on the same team, we may quibble about intricacies.

---

It seems you are more worried about Trump downsizing the Federal government. Do you work in the Federal government, perhaps?

infinity ag said:

---

Government employment declining is fine, but those people still need jobs so private sector needs to take them in. That isn't happening as enough jobs are not created and US corps are itching to send jobs abroad. How can people live in this country? Who will pay their property taxes?

---

unfortunately many of those folks have been "ruined" working in a strict bureaucratic organization, the federal govt, and don't understand how to work in a "for profit" business....they've been rewarded for rule following, form filing, proper approval and a slow moving network vs a nimble/quick response

but yes, they need jobs and training

Logos Stick said:

---

It seems you are more worried about Trump downsizing the Federal government. Do you work in the Federal government, perhaps?

---

My read of difference is you want to cut the size of government by eliminating government jobs. Infinity agrees but also wants the government to force the private sector to hire back those same government employees that weren't able to prove they deserved to be employed by the government, much less the private sector.

Maybe it would help if you told us pleebs what break even employment means and how it relates to jobs data?

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Maybe it would help if you told us pleebs what break even employment means and how it relates to jobs data?

---

As many people need jobs, get jobs.

250k people entering the job market monthly from graduating high school/college/immigration, then you need 250k to employ them

Now, maybe birth rates decline, less young people entering the workforce, cut immigration and less illegal and legal immigrants entering the workfoce, you don't need as many jobs created to fill the demand for jobs.

At breakeven, you're essentially having no net movement on unemployment rates.

infinity ag said:

---

Government employment declining is fine, but those people still need jobs so private sector needs to take them in. That isn't happening as enough jobs are not created and US corps are itching to send jobs abroad. How can people live in this country? Who will pay their property taxes?

---

Or they could scale back their living expenses to account for loss of income. Millions of people have had to do that so why are gov't workers any more special?

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Maybe it would help if you told us pleebs what break even employment means and how it relates to jobs data?

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

Comparing our break-even estimates with actual payroll growth (Chart 2, blue bars) suggests that job growth over the recent three monthsDecember 2025February 2026has slightly exceeded the break-even rate on average, consistent with the unemployment rate remaining stable despite softer headline payroll numbers.

---

Translation: job growth is better than what the headlines say once you factor the break-even rate.